Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#71

Post by sudouser »

Tohhou wrote: post #52
kartan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a theory that the root cause of these problems is the continued dismantling of traditional gender roles. Except that Japan has kept traditional gender roles, where the woman leaves her job when marries, and they have one of the lower fertility rates in the world. At the same time, Sweden with very strong gender equality has a higher fertility rate than other European countries. Even that it is still low co…

Western countries have lower rates than Japan when you exclude for native birth rates. Western countries get a big boost in birth rate when you account for non-natives having population booms.

this, an often overlooked factor are immigrants’ contributions to SS in the united states

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#72

Post by purple-again »

justboxing wrote: post #32
kasey_junk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone else was curious what SMV means in this comment it seems to be Sexual Market Value. It’s a term used amongst red pill/incel and such communities.

> red pill / incel incel = Involuntarily Celibate. What's red pill? Also, how does the 'Nu male' relates to, or is different from an incel dude?

Red Pill comes from a famous late 90’s Sci Fi movie called The Matrix. The main characters world is not exactly what it appears to be at first and he is offered a choice of the red pill which would show him the truth or the blue pill that would keep him living the lie.

It has since been picked up by many communities as a way of saying they are ‘woke’ to the truth. It is currently in widespread use amongst the community of the subreddit The Donald by people claiming to have woken up from the liberal agenda or something along those lines.

In this context it probably refers to an infamous subreddit called the_red_pill that was a cess pool of pick up artists essentially training each other on how to hurt abuse and/or use women. It was banned sometime ago, during the Ellen Pao era I think. I believe they used it in the context of being woken up from the ‘lies’ of treating women as normal human beings if you want to find a lover.

Never hear of Nu Male, sounds like 4chan to me.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#73

Post by maroonblazer »

dvtrn wrote: post #62
chillwaves wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both. Inherently bad and bad actors promoting it in bad faith. PUA in a nutshell is lying to women, degrading them etc in a way to manipulate someone into a relationship. It is toxic to the core.

Interesting. This has me wondering about something: I'm no incel or whatever, I'm also not particularly focused on a relationship (or sex, although there is a non-committed person in my life I see with regularity for both the casual romp and coffee dates to just sit and enjoy company), in married to the degree but I'm curious what you think: is there a difference between enjoying the art of playful flirting/courting…

> Part of me thinks that at the core, it's ALL an act of mind games to convince another person why you're worth their time (or conversely showing them why you're worth theirs) and there's going to be some level of duplicity involved.

I tried that for the longest time and it was exhausting and unfruitful. When I relented and simply focused on meeting as many women as I could - and having the patience for a natural attraction to occur - it made a big difference. It sounds a bit Zen but when I stopped trying to "score" it seemed much easier to meet plenty of interesting women.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#74

Post by dvtrn »

chillwaves wrote: post #66
dvtrn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. This has me wondering about something: I'm no incel or whatever, I'm also not particularly focused on a relationship (or sex, although there is a non-committed person in my life I see with regularity for both the casual romp and coffee dates to just sit and enjoy company), in married to the degree but I'm curious what you think: is there a difference between enjoying the art of playful flirting/courting…

There is a way to do this without being toxic. If you are harming the other person, making them feel less so you feel more powerful, then it is a problem. I am able to flirt with a woman without making them feel less so I don't know how to answer your question beyond that.

While I can certainly appreciate the response there, it isn't quite what I'm asking:

is there a difference between enjoying the art of playful flirting/courting and PUA?

Not asking if it's merely possible to court/flirt without being toxic (because of course there is, absolutely, I agree). I pose the question the way I have because I have yet to be wholly convinced that PUA is inherently toxic, and we aren't allowing the manifestation of bad actors to paint a view of enjoying the transactional nature of flirting to the point of finding ways to make it more engaging than simply engaging in small-talk/banter/exchanging statements back and forth at each other about life, the universe and etcetera-and subsequently-wanting to find ways of improving how you go about courting relationships.

tl;dr - "hate the player, not the game", etc.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#75

Post by spurcell93 »

AIX2ESXI wrote: post #38
Jedd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice that a lot of your comments are declared as absolute truths, often applying to large demographics, without much to back those claims up. It feels like you've got strong opinions (that's perfectly okay!) and think your view of the world is shared by many / most other people (this, not so much).

I read a lot of studies and listen to political scientist lectures who draw the same conclusions that I do (Charles Murray. Victor David Hanson). Most times, I am too lazy to link to the case studies or books that discuss my points. Guilty as charged for having strong opinions; however, when I try to discuss them I am attacked, vilified and down voted into oblivion. Do this often enough and you will start to get rese…

Self expression is all well and good, but when participating in a discussion, we'd all be much better served if you didn't hurl offensive and ungrounded insults at large segments of the population. Curmudgeonly is one way to put it; immature and ignorant is another.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#76

Post by throw_this_one »

alf-pogz wrote: post #29
8bitsrule wrote: post #6

Isn't just economic, methinks: Millennials also tend to be more perceptive about the costs of overpopulation and the approach of global warming. The wisdom of Small Is Beautiful is not so lost on them.

Speak for yourself. I'm petrified by the prospect of lack of growth. It is what our economy is built on, and a larger population could result in better science. There is plenty of land in the United States. Even our cities in the rust belt are underpopulated.

The growth-based economic model is flawed. Countries should be rewarded economically/politically by some sort of sustainability index where all of their positive/negative externalities are accounted for.

We do not need more people on this planet. It will only increase the likelihood of a major catastrophe like famine -> war -> nuclear war, which will then put scientific research back decades if not centuries.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#77

Post by maroonblazer »

AIX2ESXI wrote: post #38
Jedd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice that a lot of your comments are declared as absolute truths, often applying to large demographics, without much to back those claims up. It feels like you've got strong opinions (that's perfectly okay!) and think your view of the world is shared by many / most other people (this, not so much).

I read a lot of studies and listen to political scientist lectures who draw the same conclusions that I do (Charles Murray. Victor David Hanson). Most times, I am too lazy to link to the case studies or books that discuss my points. Guilty as charged for having strong opinions; however, when I try to discuss them I am attacked, vilified and down voted into oblivion. Do this often enough and you will start to get rese…

I'm pretty familiar with Murray but you seem to be taking some of his claims and making them a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Aim higher.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#78

Post by throw_this_one »

sbinthree wrote: post #46

As a 24 year old married man sitting in the nursery with my premature son, I feel truly sad that more people cannot experience this. I don't have a house, I rent my apartment, we share a car and we both (were) working. So what? Time marches on. So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. And yet people complain of indulgence and a lack of meaning?…

People shouldn't have kids if they're not ready. If a guy has a kid with a woman and then they get divorced in 5 years. That kid will turn out worse.

Also, if everybody has kids early, the population of the world is going to rise above the carrying capacity of the planet. Which will cause future famines, wars, etc.

Finally, maybe other people derive meaning from other things. What life experiences would you have had if you didn't have a kid at 24? From 24-35 you could've experienced a music scene more deeply, traveled the world and become fluent in languages, worked on a Phd in a field. But you chose a kid, which is great! But other people chose otherwise. I agree that having a kid is a MUST-DO in life. But maybe later is better.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#79

Post by maroonblazer »

baudehlo wrote: post #49
nunez wrote: post #34

Why would we have kids and suffer when we could not have kids and enjoy life to the fullest? We make just enough to have a really good life without kids or have a really stressful life with them. We don’t even have a house yet (and I mostly don’t want one, but that’s another conversation). I ran the numbers, and I didn’t like the outcome. Everyone that I know that has kids is sleep deprived, unable to do much of anyt…

I was totally the same. Just had my first 9mo ago. I’m exhausted. I’m 44 years old (and not financially stable yet due to divorce). It’s hard work at this age. But is it worth it? Absolutely. I had no affection for children at all before this. I don’t (even now) like other people’s kids that much. But today I came home from a long day of filing SR&ED paperwork (Canadian research tax benefit) and my daughter would jus…

My situation is not too dissimilar - 52 yrs old, divorced, w/ a 12 yr old boy. The first few years ARE difficult, but the older they get both the easier and more fun it becomes. They're increasingly self-sufficient which means your focus can shift from the mundane (diapers, etc) to educating them about life. My kid was unplanned, which was especially challenging in that I never had a particular desire to be a parent. So far it's been rewarding. I have his mom to thank for at least half of that.

Re: The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 30 years

#80

Post by phil21 »

alf-pogz wrote: post #29
8bitsrule wrote: post #6

Isn't just economic, methinks: Millennials also tend to be more perceptive about the costs of overpopulation and the approach of global warming. The wisdom of Small Is Beautiful is not so lost on them.

Speak for yourself. I'm petrified by the prospect of lack of growth. It is what our economy is built on, and a larger population could result in better science. There is plenty of land in the United States. Even our cities in the rust belt are underpopulated.

Let those places grow feral again. We don't need to take up the entire damn planet as a species. Or at least the entire "fertile" bits of it.

I could not be more diametrically opposed to your position. It's clear to me we have far too many people as it is, and the only way out is through population decline. Anything else is ridiculous line noise to argue about. Once you solve the CO2 climate change problem you have about 10 other just-as-bad crises right behind it if population growth continues.

Sure, as you say there could be some more black swan events in science/technology that technically lets us expand in the short term much like modern agriculture has. I don't see that as a positive as it simply delays the inevitable and makes it even more impossible to recover from.

Post reply on HN